| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman add one more reason to his litany of good reasons why there is no justification for taking all the stages of the Bill in one day? The objectives sought by the constituents of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) could be perfectly well served if we spread our work over two days, or overnight. If amendments are tabled, as they can be, at any time before the end of Second Reading, which will be some hours from now, people will have absolutely no chance to take them away and check objectively whether they are
valid or invalid, justified or unjustified, and whether advice has been taken. That exactly replicates the worst sort of practice, in which legislation is steamrollered through by Government majority without any chance of proper parliamentary scrutiny of amendments put forward by either side of the House to any part of the Bill.
Mr. Mackinlay: I agree. There was a recent precedent, when we were discussing some of the representations on railway privatisation. Others as well as myself raised the subject of the jurisdiction of the British Transport police. I was scoffed at by those on the Treasury Bench, and there was not a great deal of interest in other quarters either. None the less, amending legislation was subsequently needed; I am sure that the Leader of the House will recognise that as a matter of fact. The powers of the British Transport police had been overlooked by the civil servants, and Ministers had decided to listen to the civil servants rather than to the hon. Member for Thurrock. Extra legislation was needed. The thing was botched; that is a matter of fact.
We are in real danger of doing a disservice to the public, and to the people who have had their liberties grossly infringed by becoming the victims of bombings, if we do not give the legislation proper consideration. That sets a dangerous precedent, so I implore hon. Members to pause and reflect on the fact that we should be seen to sacrifice a few more hours of time in this place, as is our duty, to demonstrate that we have been able to probe and to understand the points that the Home Secretary makes on Second Reading.
As would happen in Committee on any other Bill, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to explain the detail of the legislation. That is not unreasonable. There might then be concord and agreement. But I am not prepared to go along with parliamentary choreography between the occupants of the two Front Benches simply to get the Bill through. It is wrong in principle, and it is extremely unhealthy for democracy.
If such a thing ever happens again--I suspect that in the life of this Parliament other ideas will be conjured up and attempts made to bounce them through quickly--we should ensure that as well as Privy Councillors and Front-Bench Members being consulted, Back-Bench Members and Members from minority parties should be able to table their considered amendments and to feel that they have had their day in court--in the high court of Parliament--to explain and defend their position, or to be satisfied on behalf of their constituents.
I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and that if there is time--which there probably will not be--we shall be able to extend the facility of being allowed to vote on amendments to the Bill by supporting the amendment that I hope to move later to the timetable motion.
Mr. Madden:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not for the first time, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has raised some important and pertinent matters. I hope that they will not be allowed to drift into the sand, which is always a danger in this place. As regards hybridity, which my hon. Friend
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had to leave the Chamber during the debate, and when I came back at about 4 o'clock I did not intend to speak. However, I now want to lay down one or two markers. I listened to the explanation by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), about the distinction between the original legislation involving the vagrancy Acts and--
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
Order. I had assumed that the hon. Gentleman was putting a point of order supplementary to that raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Before he continues, I must ask him whether that was correct.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was not speaking on that particular point.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Then I must deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West. My understanding is that all Bills are scrutinised for hybridity before they appear in this place. I am sure that in the light of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), further scrutiny will be given, but I have no reason to suppose that there is any difficulty.
Mr. Madden:
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have every sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, because I was one of the Members involved last night in trying to table amendments, and I saw the great pressures to which the Table Office was subjected by the way in which the Bill and the other amendments became available at such short notice.
I ask you again, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the matter could be fully investigated, because I have considerable doubts about whether the Clerks had a proper opportunity to consider any aspect of the Bill, let alone its hybridity. I would be grateful if you could confirm that the Clerks will offer their considered advice to Madam Speaker, and that she in turn will offer her advice to the House, in a ruling at an appropriate stage of our proceedings, so that we can all be satisfied as to whether the Bill has been properly and fully considered with a view to hybridity, and whether it is proper to proceed on the basis on which we are being invited to proceed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
I have already made the point that no doubt, in the light of the comments by the hon. Member for Thurrock, scrutiny will again be given. I do not think that we can take the matter further at this point.
Mr. Corbyn:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I drew attention to the fact there could potentially be 17 debates
Madam Deputy Speaker:
That is not a point of order for the Chair. The whole purpose of a debate on the timetable is to raise such matters.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington):
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) draw a distinction, and I think that what he said sounded very convincing. I am not a rebel--in the sense that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), I do not suggest that I shall be marching through the Lobbies under a Labour Government in any way other than the way the Whips want, in normal circumstances--
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
My view has always been very simple: when we want to argue such matters, we argue them out in the parliamentary Labour party or privately with Ministers. Sometimes one puts the boot in privately as well, because that is how to sort out issues of major controversy. My view is that, whenever possible, one should seek to support one's Government.
I find what is happening tonight very worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was elected as a Member of Parliament at the same time as I was, in 1979. He can remember incidents over the years which have concerned us, particularly in civil liberties debates. The problem is that a Labour Member's mailbag is not just about housing, Inland Revenue, social security and third-world cases--it is often littered with letters from civil libertarian lobbies, because members of such lobbies always come to Labour Members to put the case for civil libertarian positions.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
That is not quite true.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
It may be that they go to Liberal Members as well, but they always come to Labour Members. My party has a very proud record on civil libertarian positions, and what we are doing today will not convince the civil libertarian lobby outside the House. They will wonder what Labour was doing.
6.10 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |